plugin_enable

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

While annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds valuable context beyond those: it explains the timing behavior via timeout_seconds (including '0 means wait indefinitely'), the prerequisite that the plugin must be disabled, and the health-wait mechanism. This discloses behavioral nuances that the annotations alone don't capture.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured and economical: a one-sentence summary, a contextual paragraph with actionable guidance, a compact args list, and a return type line. Every sentence contributes meaning, and the formatting is scannable and front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema (bool), the description is complete: it covers preconditions, configuration prerequisites, timeout semantics, and the return value. It also situates the tool within the plugin lifecycle by referencing inspect, configure, and disable, so an agent has all necessary context to select and invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has no descriptions (coverage 0%), but the description includes a dedicated 'args' section that clearly explains both parameters: name ('The plugin name to enable') and timeout_seconds ('Seconds to wait for the plugin to become healthy (0 = no timeout)'). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, adding complete semantic meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Activate an installed plugin so Docker routes relevant API calls through it.' This clearly states the function and distinguishes it from plugin_disable, plugin_configure, and plugin_install by emphasizing the disabled state and activation context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly tells when to use this tool: after a plugin is 'freshly installed or previously disabled via plugin_disable.' It also advises checking plugin_inspect and calling plugin_configure before enabling, naming specific sibling tools and providing clear conditional guidance. This effectively differentiates it from alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.